Uncategorized

Is it Time to Ban All Automatic Weapons?

Submitted by Guest Blogger, Lawrence Rafferty

In light of the tragic shooting today in Arizona, I have to wonder aloud if automatic weapons should be banned by this country.  I realize that the 2nd Amendment right to own a gun is strongly defended by the NRA and other right-wing groups, but I am sick and tired of reading about all of the shootings the past couple of years.  Whether it was the shootings earlier this year at various United States Marine sites around the country or the California shootout in July with the guy who was trying to attack the ACLU and the TIDES non-profit organization; the vitriol seems to be on the rise.  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40978517/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/  And with politicians fanning the flames, this vitriol is not bound to be diminished anytime soon.

The Second Amendment is a very concise Amendment.  “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am2  We have seen various attempts over the years by the Feds and many States and municipalities to restrict gun ownership.  The recent Supreme Court case of McDonald , et al vs.  City of Chicago, Illinois, et al affirmed the fundamental right of Americans to own a gun by a 5-4 decision.  http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf  The McDonald decision did not give us any guidance on what kind of restrictions to that fundamental right the Supreme Court would allow.  However, how can automatic weapons or high-powered rifles be exempt from an outright banning of their ownership or at least significant restrictions on their use? Can a good faith argument really be made that an automatic weapon is necessary for personal protection? 

The Supreme Court Justices do not live in a bubble and they must see what damage these weapons have already brought to families across the nation.  Don’t they?

369 thoughts on “Is it Time to Ban All Automatic Weapons?”

  1. The difference between fully automatic and semiautomatic weapons is irrelevant. The fact is that a semiautomatic pistol such as a Glock 9mm is has far more killing power than anything available to an Eigteenth century soldier. A single person in a crowd with a 9mm weapon can whack quite a few people before he is stopped or everyone runs away. I am not sure that a fully automatic gun would be much worse, it may in fact be less bad in that an inexperienced user would tend to exhaust his ammo pretty quickly. Probably the training of the gunman would be critical to its relative effectiveness.

    Compare the massacre effectiveness off these four weapons types:-

    1/ A muzzle loading pistol;
    2/ A six shot revolver;
    3/ A 9mmm automatic with clips holding sixteen bullets;
    4/ An Uzzi or Heckler and Koch machine pistol.

  2. It is a great pity that the 2nd amendment of the US constitution does not get some of the contemptuous legal violence meted out to the fourth. The drug and terrorism exceptions have effectively abolished the fourth amendment, but the 2nd is still allowing right ring crazies to whack Jews and Democrats.

  3. Some point about the US second amendment.

    At the time that the 2nd amendment was passed, the height of small arms technology was the muzzle loading musket. Imagine a single deranged individual trying to conduct a massacre with muzzle loading weapons, the idea is absurd.

    I have seen it written somewhere that the 2nd amendment was passed at the insistence of the slave states who needed well regulated militias to keep the Niggers from getting uppity.

    The idea that citizens armed with small arms are able to prevent the takeover of government by totalitarians is laughable. Governments as well as armies of well trained infantry better able to use their small arms than can untrained citizens also have heavy weapons, tanks and air forces capable of obliterating the dissenting citizens with fuel air bombs. In any case, the actual armed citizens are the ones likely to be on the side of a fascist government. This Arizona shooter is a good example, no doubt he is a good Republican and most decent Republicans will cheer that he whacked a Democrat. If the judge was Democrat appointed all the better.

    Australia was lucky in that Martin Bryant offed enough people at Port Arthur to create a enough backlash against guns that Prime Minister John Howard was able to introduce effective gun laws over the objections of the usual demented agriculturalists and gun looneys. Of course Martin Bryant is in solitary in Risdon prison, but in my view he deserves an order of Australia medal. Far more credit for Australia’s clamp down on guns belongs to him than to John Howard, the third unprosecuted war criminal of the Iraqistan wars.

    You Americans are not going to get rid of your permissive attitude to guns that enable lone persons to commit sizable massacres until someone does you the favour of committing one that is big enough.

    It would seem to me that the 2nd amendment should be restated to allow citizens access to any small arms technology that was widely available in the eighteenth century and to carry no more than one piece of it at a time. That should be enough for those wanting to blow away burglars or the occasional deer. Come to think of it maybe the police should be restricted as well, Amadou Diallo might still be alive if the four NYPD cops each had one muzzle loading pistol.

  4. Everyday we read here about police crimes and military atrocities. Yet by banning automatic weapons we’d have a society in which only the police and military have them.

    Start instead Prof. Turley by advocating the banning of automatic weapons at the Pentagon. Foreign policy is an extension of domestic policy. It’s absurd & naive to imagine a society can slaughter Iraqis abroad with virtual impunity without domestic consequences. A society reaps what it sows. Ban war not weapons.

  5. If one can envision this society as a table, carved over the decades for functional purpose, then I submit it’s only logical to recognize one of the four legs propping us up, is violence. And our propensity for pissiness runs all the way to the bone.

    From the Sumerians till now, practically every true power of its era, invariably spawned an appalling capacity to draw blood in the blink of an eye, and call it justified. Many, of course, murder over lines in the sand. Many more, probably, kill over which invisible man in the sky is the “real” ghost deserving worship. Some – as the Romans and Carthagenians – apparently fight for no better cause than than the other guy seems a little different, and not only that, he’s breathing air.

    I will gleefully leave it to future historians, to decide how America rates with other bloodthirsty societies. I’d guess, however, that as U.S. foreign policy tallies something like 50 military actions in seven decades, we’ll rank as effective at Homicide as any humans extant.

    But in light of the yet another senseless shooting today in Arizona, I suspect the price of our warlike DNA goes well beyond the treasure spend and teenage soldiers in the sand. War and weapons teaches our young – on a visceral level – that we really only have to compromise so far.

    The fellows who initially put this grand experiment called America to paper, were brilliant indeed, and their vision was truly extraordinary. But I submit they never envisioned the ungodly firepower that exists today, nor would they tolerate the ease with which madmen could murder strangers and children.
    I suspect they would bring some wisdom to our table, perhaps by sawing off all four legs just a bit. Reign in the madness. Rethink the matter of “militias.” Figure ways to protect both sides, without the ugliness we now have.

    Humankind appears to have reached the edges of a perfect storm: our loners can now spend countless hours communicating more with strangers than their own families. They can mine more data in an afternoon than a library might provide in a month. They can absorb more vile content, formulate faulty decisions quicker, be more resolute in their derangement.

    In the year 2011, pulling a trigger is not all that dissimilar from hitting the Ipod “send” button.

    And scarcely more personal.

  6. Buddha Is Laughing
    1, January 8, 2011 at 11:55 pm
    “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson

    =============================================================

    Mr Jefferson lived a long and rewarding life. Perhaps he and our little 9 year old will meet and he can explain tyranny to her. I’d love to hear that justification, wouldn’t you. 🙂

  7. Wow, It looks like about 250 postings have been generated on 2 threads in the last 8 hours as well as the posters having to take care of normal business in their 3d life. It’s been an emotional day (for me) and I’m tired so I’ll bid you a good night and have a beer before going to bed.

    The threads have been interesting and enlightening (thank you all!) and even the threads that got pretty much ignored were interesting while they were active. Thanks to the guest blawgers; the Professor left his blawg in capable hands.

  8. Rafflaw-
    I don’t know the exact make of the woman’s shotgun and I don’t think it’s relevant. We should have access to the most effective tools to defend ourselves.

    I have to respectfully disagree with Buddha is Laughing regarding guns such as the AR-15/M-4. They are used for sport and hunting and are well suited for home defense. They are light-weight, and have very low recoil. A carbine as opposed to a handgun offers a better sight picture while being easier to handle than a shotgun. Most deer rifles are a great deal more powerful than the typical AR.

    Lastly, they are rarely used in crimes. Long guns in general comprise less than 10% of the guns used in crime, and so called assault weapons are a tiny fraction of that. Bad guys like their guns cheap and easy to conceal.

  10. Regarding the emotion behind the deaths, especially of the young girl, I think that no male can ever sense the same depth of emotion that a female senses when dealing with death. Women have intrinsic mechanisms that guide them to nurture life at all costs; attributes further reinforced by the investments required of them through childbirth and rearing.

    Goodnight…

  12. The right wing answer to this problem of mass shootings is for everyone to be armed, that way the shooter can only kill one or two before being killed by armed persons nearby.

    It’s not a particularly sane point of view, but it’s understandable that an insane person would support it.

  15. Ms. EM & Blouise,

    Uh, sorry, but can I get by with an excuse thst all women sound the same to me regarding gun control and…?

    Seriously, I am sorry for that mistake.

  16. savaship,

    Thanks. I ask that once you think it is appropriate, please let us know since I think your case would be a good topic to discuss when (not if) we have another gun debate.

  17. FFLEO

    I think that was Elaine that asked you that.

    Don’t worry … I’m not going to shoot you … today 🙂

  18. Thanks Elaine,
    I agree, victims of any crime have every right to be angry. On this issue, I simply wish they’d be more angry at the criminal people who commits the murders, and less angry at their chosen implements… and I definitely wish they’d stop asking the government to ruin my life because of criminals.

  20. “I went back an looked at what I said. What I said was that you were making an argument based on emotion rather than logic. ” (Otteray Scribe)

    ========================================================

    Semantics, darlin’, semantics but if it helps you feel good about your tactics then, by all means, obfuscate away.

    ********************************************************

    “I am, however, waiting for someone to offer a workable plan for going up into the Appalachian mountains and taking guns from the residents there.” (Otteray Scribe)

    ===================================================

    I’m 100% of Scot’s descent … many of my relatives live up in those mountains and all along “the Runs” … they won’t give up their guns, or their knives, or their clubs … wouldn’t have done it before the Constitution was written and wouldn’t do it now. But good luck to ya!

Comments are closed.